Reply With Quote
Hm... I wonder, if the Texas Cons ution forbids gay marriage, that doesn't necessarily forbid gay divorce, correct?
Attorney general intervention denied; Travis County gay divorce stands
Judge says Dallas case would likely reach the Texas Supreme Court, which could establish whether same-sex couples married elsewhere may legally divorce in Texas
By Steven Kreytak AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Updated: 11:45 p.m. Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Published: 8:41 p.m. Wednesday, March 31, 2010
A judge in Travis County declined Wednesday to consider Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's request to intervene in the county's first same-sex divorce case, letting stand the judge's February decision to grant a divorce to two women who had been married in another state.
Abbott's deputies had argued in court filings that Angelique Naylor, 39, and Sabina Daly, 42, may not be legally granted a divorce because Texas law defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Naylor and Daly were married in 2004 in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal. They returned to their home in Austin after their marriage and adopted a son, who is now 4.
During a hearing at the Heman Sweatt Travis County Courthouse, state District Judge Scott Jenkins questioned Abbott's decision to pursue the case, noting that his office is involved in same-sex divorce litigation in Dallas that is already on appeal. That case, Jenkins said, is positioned to provide legal precedent on the legality of gay divorce. He suggested that a delayed disposition in the Travis County case could affect Naylor and Daly's son.
"In trying to put brakes on this proceeding," Jenkins asked Deputy Attorney General David Morales, "what consideration did the attorney general give" to the boy?
Morales responded in part by saying: "It is our obligation as the chief legal officer to express to the court the proper method to bring finality to the parties, including the minor child."
In previous court filings, Abbott's office had argued that granting a divorce would subject Daly and Naylor to a lifetime of uncertainty. Legal voidance, the court filings argued, is the quickest, cheapest and most reliable way to end the marriage.
Massachusetts became the first state to permit same-sex marriages following a 2003 decision by that state's highest court. Same-sex couples also may now wed in Vermont, Connecticut, Iowa and New Hampshire.
Texas is among the states that have passed cons utional amendments banning gay marriage. The Texas amendment, which the Legislature passed in 2005 and 76 percent of voters approved, defines marriage as between one man and one woman. A similar provision defining marriage is in the Texas Family Code.
Naylor and Daly have been separated for more than a year. Naylor continues to live in Austin; Daly moved to San Antonio with their son, according to court do ents.
In December, Naylor filed for divorce, a disposition Daly initially opposed. But on Feb. 10, after a two-day hearing, they agreed to divorce. They also reached agreement that day involving sharing custody of their son and dividing their property. The agreement came after Jenkins consistently prodded the couple to act in the best interests of their child.
At the close of the Feb. 10 hearing, Jenkins orally rendered final judgment granting the divorce, Jenkins said Wednesday.
Abbott sought to enter the case the next day.
Morales argued in court Wednesday that because Jenkins had not yet signed off on the final decree, the case was still open and the judge could consider the attorney general's argument against granting the divorce.
Naylor's lawyer, Jennifer Cochran, and Bob Luther, who represents Daly, argued that because Jenkins had ruled by the time Abbott sought to intervene, Abbott had no legal standing to enter the case.
Jenkins said oral judgments are final in Travis County family cases, where it is critical to allow parties to wrap up litigation quickly and get on with their lives.
In the Dallas case referred to by Jenkins in court, a judge denied Abbott's attempt to intervene. That case involves two men who also were married out of state.
State District Judge Tena Callahan in Dallas County ruled in October that the two men could divorce in Texas. Callahan also ruled in that case that the prohibition of same-sex marriage violates the right to equal protection under the U.S. Cons ution.
Abbott appealed the ruling, and on April 21, a panel of the Texas 5th District Court of Appeals in Dallas is scheduled to hear arguments in the case.
That case, Jenkins said, could reach the Texas Supreme Court, which could establish whether same-sex couples married elsewhere may legally divorce in Texas.
In the local case, Jenkins noted in granting a final divorce decree to the couple that family law cases involving children are the hardest he considers. He said he always conjures a mental image of the child involved when hearing them and had done so with Daly and Naylor's son. He recited the boy's birthday from memory.
Jenkins said that even when the children are not told about the litigation, "there is potential for collateral damage" to the children involved.
"I feel that children feel stress and pick it up in the very air they breathe," he said.
He said children are what "we are supposed to be concerned about as lawyers and as judges."
Then, speaking about the attorney general's office, he said: "The wise and merciful thing to do in this case is to simply leave these parties alone."
Outside court, Morales said no determination has been made on whether Abbott would file an appeal in the case.
Hm... I wonder, if the Texas Cons ution forbids gay marriage, that doesn't necessarily forbid gay divorce, correct?
One would think. AG Abbott thinks granting the divorce would legitimize gay unions. I hope he stops wasting time and $$$ on this and lets these people get on with their lives
Abbott is wasting time and lots of Texas taxpayer $$$ with this and with the health-care reform lawsuits....neither will go anywhere....at most it will force Democrats to get rid of the public mandate - a GOP idea anyway, then we will have free health-care, just what progressives want..
???
What? The mandate was originally a GOP idea..that part of the law can be stripped without negating the whole law..
check the banner, Dan. Are you sure you're posting in the right thread?
it's about Abbott right?
and gay divorce, yes.
Wouldn't they want gay divorces...which gives gays a chance to distance themselves from their gay partner and possibly go to gay rehab w/ a Church or ministry?
Well the strict cons utionalists would have to agree..Hm... I wonder, if the Texas Cons ution forbids gay marriage, that doesn't necessarily forbid gay divorce, correct?
Granting a divorce kind of means they recognize that there was a marriage, don't you think? My guess is that's why the GOP are in such a tizzy about this.
It's usually black and white to conservatives but unfortunately that isn't the world we live in. On one hand they want govt out of our lives..yet want to push an amendment to the cons ution to ban gay marriage. They want strict cons utionlists on the court who won't be activsists like the liberal dems.... yet they will want activist courts in case like these..
Maybe Greg Abbott should walk a mile in their shoes.
Pretty sure those marriages are legally recognized already due to federal law. Texans can and pass laws about marriages granted by their state but they still have to recognize marriages granted by loving hippies in other states.
This dude just has political aspirations higher than his current post and is getting himself better fund raising on the back of Texas tax dollars.
Is this dude related to Dan Morales?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
